No guns at University of Oregon or Oregon State University ??

[CRBMoA]

 

[Koda]

I was coming here to seek clarification on the preemptive part of the CHL laws. Since that seems to be where this conversation went I will ask here.
Currently, it is my understanding that a public (gov) entity cannot restrict CHL holders from carrying on their property. That is correct? I am fairly new to CHL, so I still wonder sometimes when I am out and about. Living in Corvallis it is hard to avoid OSU. I was just down there yesterday. Seems like their policy currently only applies to their own students and cannot legally be applied to concealed carry on their property. That is, if I am reading the simply written law correctly.

Obviously private property owners can restrict access however they want, though I have yet to see a business post "no firearms".

Looking at SB554, I don't see any scheduled votes. It seems like a really foolish idea. Has there been any trouble in Oregon with CHL holders that I am unaware of? Complying with this proposed law seems more dangerous than just letting things be. In a holster, a firearm has no chance of firing. Concealed it has nearly no chance of being taken. If to comply with the law, people are handling their firearms throughout the day to lock them in safes (or worse throwing them in the glove compartment), those are added chances for something bad to happen. More than this, I hate laws that seemed to be aimed at turning law abiding citizens into felons. It is particularly insulting living in a town that allows all kinds of lawlessness to go unchecked and unpunished.

My understanding is this law basically removes the state preemption. I'm not certain how that works but your understanding of the law is the same as mine, a public entity cannot restrict CHL on their public property.

as far as college students, currently... its legal for students to carry but the school can expel them for violating school policy. Under the new law they can also be charged with a crime.

I have seen a few private buisnesses post no guns signs. Currently its legal to ignore them but you must leave immediately if asked to leave for carrying or you can be charged with trespassing. Under the new law, it will be illegal to ignore the sign. Essentially, this new law is similar to the Texas "30-06" signage law, makes no guns signs carry the wieght of the law and empowers anyone or place to prohibit you from legally carrying concealed.

 

[soberups]

585 and 604 are officially dead. As bad as 554 is, 585 was 10x worse. So a wee glimmer of good news at least....

Mixed success for 2021 Oregon gun bills so far

With the deadline for most bills to pass out of a committee now in the rear-view mirror, it’s a bit clearer which gun bills have a chance to make it to the governor's desk for a signature this session.

www.oregonlive.com

 

[soberups]

As far as navigating the minefield goes, 554 does require signs to be posted that are visible to the public as well as a notice to be posted on the building's website. Not saying its a good law, just saying that the risk of accidentally crossing an invisible line and becoming a felon might not be as great as we had initially feared.

From the text of the bill:

a) Post a sign, visible to the public, identifying all locations where the affirmative de- fense described in ORS 166.370 (3)(g) is limited or precluded. The sign must include a uni- versally understandable symbol indicating that firearms are prohibited or restricted.

(b) Post a notice on the entity's website identifying all locations where the affirmative defense described in ORS 166.370 (3)(g) is limited or precluded.

 

[308]

CCW like uR penus....rarely if ever a problem when properly concealed.

 

[solv3nt]

Currently its legal to ignore them but you must leave immediately if asked to leave for carrying or you can be charged with trespassing. Under the new law, it will be illegal to ignore the sign. Essentially, this new law is similar to the Texas "30-06" signage law, makes no guns signs carry the wieght of the law and empowers anyone or place to prohibit you from legally carrying concealed.

FYI, trespassing with a firearm is a felony, not a misdemeanor.

 

[Koda]

FYI, trespassing with a firearm is a felony, not a misdemeanor.

except your not trespassing if you leave immediately when asked.
Currently anyways....

 

[P7M13]

CCW like uR penus....rarely if ever a problem when properly concealed.

I was at BiMart buying ammo. The clerk was showing discomfort with his mask. I asked, "how do you do it for eight hours?" After a little chit-chat, I commented, "I could wear a mask, no clothes, have my sidearm on my hip with a holster and belt, and my concealed carry card, and I would be OK as long as I wore a mask."
He paused a few seconds then said, "that blows my mind - the laws in this state are so insane."

 

[solv3nt]

except your not trespassing if you leave immediately when asked.
Currently anyways....

Yes, don't stick around if someone asks you to leave.

 

[arakboss]

I believe SB 554 was amended to NOT include property outside the building now, but man is it hard to swallow when so many other states are moving towards permit-less carry.

Born and raised here in Oregon. Hard to stay with the government so antagonistic towards my beliefs.

Can you provide more info/links on the current status of this amendment?

 

[Gbirk]

Can you provide more info/links on the current status of this amendment?

Right now all I see that is official is the overview here that removed parking areas: SB 554 A

So it specifically states "possession of firearms in public buildings". The word "in" is important.
and
"policy may not affect possession of firearms in parking area or parking garage"

Authorizes city, county, metropolitan service district, port operating commercial airport, school district, college or university] entity that owns, occupies or controls public building to adopt ordinance, rule or policy limiting or precluding affirmative defense for possession of firearms in public buildings by concealed handgun licensees. Provides that ordinance, rule or policy may not affect possession of firearms in parking area or parking garage. Modifies definition of "public building," for purposes of crime of possession of weapon in public building, to include certain airport areas, buildings owned, occupied or controlled by specified public bodies and real property owned by college or university. Defines "state building" and removes affirmative defense for possession of firearm in state building by concealed handgun licensee. Provides that prohibition of firearms in public buildings does not apply to person who possesses unloaded firearm in airport in locked container for transportation in accordance with federal law. Punishes violation by maximum of five years' imprisonment, $125,000 fine, or both. Increases fees payable to county sheriff for issuance and renewal of concealed handgun license. Takes effect on 91st day following adjournment sine die.

 

[arakboss]

Right now all I see that is official is the overview here that removed parking areas: SB 554 A

So it specifically states "possession of firearms in public buildings". The word "in" is important.
and
"policy may not affect possession of firearms in parking area or parking garage"

Authorizes city, county, metropolitan service district, port operating commercial airport, school district, college or university] entity that owns, occupies or controls public building to adopt ordinance, rule or policy limiting or precluding affirmative defense for possession of firearms in public buildings by concealed handgun licensees. Provides that ordinance, rule or policy may not affect possession of firearms in parking area or parking garage. Modifies definition of "public building," for purposes of crime of possession of weapon in public building, to include certain airport areas, buildings owned, occupied or controlled by specified public bodies and real property owned by college or university. Defines "state building" and removes affirmative defense for possession of firearm in state building by concealed handgun licensee. Provides that prohibition of firearms in public buildings does not apply to person who possesses unloaded firearm in airport in locked container for transportation in accordance with federal law. Punishes violation by maximum of five years' imprisonment, $125,000 fine, or both. Increases fees payable to county sheriff for issuance and renewal of concealed handgun license. Takes effect on 91st day following adjournment sine die.

"Provides that prohibition of firearms in public buildings does not apply to person who possesses unloaded firearm in airport in locked container for transportation in accordance with federal law."


The above alleviates my concern for how people were going to fly with firearms.


This below concerns me as it could mean property outside a building?

"occupied or controlled by specified public bodies and real property owned by college or university."

 

[bill1225]

Son went to Eastern Oregon State. Folks use to leave guns in truck gun racks in vehicles parked outside of the dorms to be able to hunt after class which is a common thing over there. Was advised that they now wanted them to be in a locked room, but that the student could get it anytime by grabbing any RA who had a key. However, if you left it for a bit in your gun rack in the truck there wasn't a legal issue, as people expected and needed some latitude when getting ready to head out and waiting for a friend who has to finish their class.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Yep.
If just 1/2 the red voters got off their bubblegum and voted we could get the state back.

I know this "upsets" a lot of people but, the people who make these laws do not just fall from the sky and start making laws. The law makers, the judges, ALL the people in power are there because voters put them there. A LOT of people who don't like it either sit on their hands every election, saying they have no control. They love to tell anyone who brings it up that they have no power so no point in voting. Great they get what they asked for. A lot of them proudly tell all they are too righteous to vote for the people running, so they throw away the vote to show they are "better". Great, it's their vote, they can do what they want. They still get the government they deserve. The rest of us just have to go with them down the toilet hoping eventually many people will get enough and actually vote well.

About 49% of the voters in Oregon own guns. Half of them don't vote. If they all voted we could win EVERY election in this state.

"A LOT of people who don't like it...sit on their hands every election, saying they have no control."

Yes, they have a whole list of excuses not to expend the effort to fill out a ballot and mail it off. They think it makes them sound smart or wise or somehow more aware than the rest of us to spout their crap about "it doesn't matter", "it's all rigged", "they're all crooks", as if by predicting failure it proves they are smarter than everyone else when we inevitably lose precisely because they sat on their butts and did nothing. They are Charley Brown refusing to try to kick the football that Lucy always snatches away. They didn't try so they didn't lose. It's the people who voted and lost that are the fools, according to them. I have no use for them. They are parasites on the rest of us, doing nothing and hoping that we will save them, while they hide under the bed. If this analysis "upsets" you then you are the problem. Take a look in the mirror and thank that guy for taking away all of your rights.

 

[Koda]

Theres an elephant in the gun rights closet... I guess we should ask ourselves why solid pro-gun politicians arent gettting elected?

 

[Dinglenutz]

Texas "30-06" signage law, makes no guns signs carry the wieght of the law and empowers anyone or place to prohibit you from legally carrying concealed.

Apparently the signage has to be very specific in Texas for the law to become applicable, and few places bother to post signage that conforms to the law. So it's still, reportedly, mostly symbolic. IANAL.

 

[Koda]

Apparently the signage has to be very specific in Texas for the law to become applicable, and few places bother to post signage that conforms to the law. So it's still, reportedly, mostly symbolic. IANAL.

Im going to have to disagree that any law that infringes on the right is merely symbolic. I dont recall anything in Oregons proposed law that specifies specific wordings either.

 

[soberups]

The signage requirement, as I read it, requires them to post signs that are visible to the public identifying the prohibited areas.
So the burden of proof would seem to be on them to prove that the sign was visible to you. In the case of a building with one or two entrances, that would be pretty easy. In the case of a field or an open space, it would be a lot more difficult unless they spent a bunch of money placing big metal signs every 10 or 15 yards in a perimeter around the area.
From the bill:

"a) Post a sign, visible to the public, identifying all locations where the affirmative de- fense described in ORS 166.370 (3)(g) is limited or precluded...."

This below concerns me as it could me property outside a building?

"occupied or controlled by specified public bodies and real property owned by college or university."

 

[Dinglenutz]

Im going to have to disagree that any law that infringes on the right is merely symbolic. I dont recall anything in Oregons proposed law that specifies specific wordings either.

IIRC the law didn't originally, but case law determined that a sign must conform to standards in order to have legal penalties attach to violations, or something like that, so a standard was created after the fact which virtually no one is aware of and even fewer have adjusted signage to comply with.

This is from my memory though so people should check if they're interested.

 

[CRBMoA]

The signage requirement, as I read it, requires them to post signs that are visible to the public identifying the prohibited areas.
So the burden of proof would seem to be on them to prove that the sign was visible to you. In the case of a building with one or two entrances, that would be pretty easy. In the case of a field or an open space, it would be a lot more difficult unless they spent a bunch of money placing big metal signs every 10 or 15 yards in a perimeter around the area.
From the bill:

"a) Post a sign, visible to the public, identifying all locations where the affirmative de- fense described in ORS 166.370 (3)(g) is limited or precluded...."

That is true, in theory.

In practice, once the police are called, we will be playing defense.

Don't believe me - Look around